Is Evan Bayh really the most electable Democrat?

[FerrisBueller86]

That's what the consensus is. I'm skeptical. I think he may have the opposite problem that Hillary Clinton would have.

I don't know much about Evan Bayh, but I've read that he's dull and not very charismatic. So while he wouldn't alienate very many voters, he wouldn't fire up voters in ANY part of the political spectrum, either. Being middle-of-the-road has its share of risks. Case in point: Oldsmobile.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Republican lite loses to Republicans.

[Defarge]

People said the same thing about Clinton before he ran.  When he made the keynote address at the convention in '88, people actually applauded when he began to conclude.  The same will be true about Bayh.  He is folksy, energetic and young.  He will prevail

[nini2287]

Either him or Mark Warner.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Maybe. He's certainly electable.

[Democratic Hawk]

Bayh was elected Indiana Secretary of State in 1986 and governor in 1988 in close contests - but his re-election as governor and both Senate contests have seen him averaging around 63% of the vote

Bayh enjoys the support of around 35% of Indiana's Republicans and 45% of her evangelical Christians; percentages most Democrats could only dream of!

In sum, I think Bayh is electable as President. However, some would say he's not too charismatic but he's certainly telegenic

Ideologically, Bayh is pretty close to the centre - a man capable of reaching out to moderate conservatives (and 'Main Street' values) without alienating liberals

In 2008, should he seek and obtain the Democratic nomination and face a conservative Republican, I reckon Bayh would win comfortably

The only downer is that sitting senators don't tend to be elected President; however, Bayh was a two-term governor with a sound executive record. A criticism is that he never really used his political capital in Indiana; however, I believe governing in a cautious, as opposed to risky, fashion is a positive attribute. Besides, after eight years of Bush ruling from the ideological right, America will be ready for more moderate and steady pair of hands come 2008

Bayh is one of the best prospects that Democrats have to  be elected President. Because he's a moderate, he has the capacity to be a uniter and not a divider in that he has strong bi-partisan appeal

I guess he could secure over 90% of the Democratic vote, 60% of independent vote and 15% of the Republican vote; as well as most liberals, most moderates and a significant number of conservatives

He's a strong Democrat from the "red" state of Indiana. His vote actually topped that of Bush (by around 18,000) when he was re-elected to the Senate

Dave

[George W. Bush]

I like the Guy, Dont know that much about him but if he was running aginst McCain, He would get my vote.

[dca5347]

Probly Not,there really are several.though he would be at the top

[phk]

the only reason why people consider him electable is that he could win Indiana's 11 and have spillover effects into the rest  of the Mid-West.

[Gabu]

the only reason why people consider him electable is that he could win Indiana's 11 and have spillover effects into the rest  of the Mid-West.

That sounds pretty good to me.

[phk]

What makes you think he can't carry Indiana?

[Rob]

Because it's so heavily Republican. Evangelicals and registered Republicans voting for him for Senator is one thing... but are they going to bolt the national ticket to vote for him in a presidential race? Probably not. He would make it close, but that's all.

[phk]

Clinton:Arkansas::Bayh:Indiana

[Rob]

Indiana's a lot more Republican than Arkansas.

[phk]

Carter:South:1976::Bayh:Midwest:2008

[Alcon]

Indiana's a lot more Republican than Arkansas.

He has amazingly high approval ratings. Arkansas is more conservative than Indiana, but still. Arkansas was Clinton's best state - he won it with over 60%.

Bayh could carry Indiana, I'd say about 55-45.

[phk]

Without Perot, Clinton could have achieved 60% in Arkansas, but he got like 53%

[Alcon]

Err, yeah, I meant 1992, and meant 50%. It was the only state in 1992 where anyone hit 50%.

[Democratic Hawk]

Indiana's a lot more Republican than Arkansas.

He has amazingly high approval ratings. Arkansas is more conservative than Indiana, but still. Arkansas was Clinton's best state - he won it with over 60%.

Bayh could carry Indiana, I'd say about 55-45.

I think Bayh would carry his home state. He fares pretty well among Indiana's Republicans and conservatives. He would have a pretty good chance of sweeping the entire Midwest region, with the possible exception of Kentucky (although Clinton carried it by are pluralities)

Dave

[skybridge]

Fun as the discussion may be, the later tenedencies seem to be towards little known candidates.

[Gustaf]

There's a hige difference between Arkansas and Indiana...Arkansas is a Democratic state, both senators are Democrats and have been for awhile. It's one of the most, probably the most, Democratic states in the South. Carter was still riding on the old Dixiecratic South when he won. That is NOT comparable with one of the most Republican states in the country, Indiana. Not saying it's impossible, if the GOP has a weak candidate, it could happen.

But don't bet on it.

[Frodo]

Definitely -though I wonder whether either he or Mark Warner will make it through the primaries relatively unscathed, what with the newly resurgent left wing of the Democratic Party now reasserting its influence over the party. 

[Alcon]

Why did I say that Arkansas is more conservative than Indiana?  Why?  Why?

[dazzleman]

Definitely -though I wonder whether either he or Mark Warner will make it through the primaries relatively unscathed, what with the newly resurgent left wing of the Democratic Party now reasserting its influence over the party. 

I agree.  The real question is, would the Democrats ever nominate him?  If he shows any sign of sanity, that's highly doubtful.

[CARLHAYDEN]

That's what the consensus is. I'm skeptical. I think he may have the opposite problem that Hillary Clinton would have.

I don't know much about Evan Bayh, but I've read that he's dull and not very charismatic. So while he wouldn't alienate very many voters, he wouldn't fire up voters in ANY part of the political spectrum, either. Being middle-of-the-road has its share of risks. Case in point: Oldsmobile.

NO!

What consensus?

If you bothered to check, you would see that Warner is the most electable in the current field.

Bayh has some really bad problems. including his longstanding attacks on the right to keep and bear arms.